Are these Conlon photos?

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by horzverti

John and his staff are indeed the source of the photos which have the round, Sporting News/John Rogers sticker on their reverse. I have purchased my share of photos through their various eBay stores (HistoricImages##, Lexibell, etc.). I also have successfully dealt with John and his team face to face at the National Show. I like to perform my own due dilligence to establish provanance to the best of my ability and resources for the items which I am interested in purchasing. I sometimes ask a lot of questions and they always answer quickly. I feel confident buying items from Rogers' archives.

In my opinion, the 'Conlon' and 'Conlon Photo' writing on the back of these photos (at beginning of thread) is not legit. I would say that this graffiti was added to the back of the photos after these photos left Rogers' team's hands. As I wrote before, the 'Conlon' writing just doesn't look like it does on legit pieces. Rogers' team would not have let these items be sold as legit Conlons. Rogers' team is building a very solid reputation in our hobby and I can't believe that hey would risk tarnishing their good name to move a few items.

Regarding the recent item on eBay, posted earlier in this thread; something smells bad here too. The item description refers to the Conlon sig as 'faux'. I believe he/she notes as 'faux' only because a prosepective buyer(s) had pointed out to him/her in the past that he is selling sketchy Conlon items. I guess it is good that the seller at very least wrote that there is some question to the legitimacy of the writing on the back. Bid on the item considering its eye appeal, not because someone scratched some gibberish on the back.

If immitation is the most sincere form of flattery, then take a bow Mr. Charles Conlon...you have earned it.

Note: if you read an opinion regarding vintage baseball photos from DRC (David Cycleback), PREWARSPORTS (Rhys Yeakley) or Henry Yee...feel confidient you are getting good info. These guys know their stuff.

Do you have facts to support your opinion that they were added after they left the hands of John's team? The seller on eBay says it came directly from them. There are also many in major auctions that I have noticed both fake signatures AND fake stamps which, I believe, get photos directly from the same team. Are you suggesting that the team uses a distributor to sell to distributors?

Please note: The seller on ebay explains EXACTLY what the item is. Eye appeal is one thing... The fact of the matter is, there is a difference in what a real vs a fake item is worth.

Scott-It might be reasonable for someone to write "Conlon photo" on the back. However it is NOT reasonable for them to replicate Conlon's signature within a circle over and over again. Why would they take the time to do that? It is not like they are little kids writing Mickey Mantle on a baseball card(trying to match his sig.).

These stamps and circled signatures appear to be placed deliberately.


This is a VERY large issue in the photo market and it should not be thrown under the rug. I will go so far as to say it is the current Couches corner of photos. A TYPE 1 BABE RUTH CONLON WITH REAL SIG AND STAMP=4 TO 5 FIGURES..... A RECENT PRINT WITH A FAKE SIG AND STAMP=LOW 1 FIGURE.

I don't care who it is, I would just like it to stop as it is hurting the hobby. Unfortunately, I do not think it will stop until the source be held accountable and exposed).

As a photo collector, I find it all very disturbing.

Ben Wein!garten

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Do you have facts to support your opinion that they were added after they left the hands of John's team? The seller on eBay says it came directly from them. There are also many in major auctions that I have noticed both fake signatures AND fake stamps which, I believe, get photos directly from the same team. Are you suggesting that the team uses a distributor to sell to distributors?

Please note: The seller on ebay explains EXACTLY what the item is. Eye appeal is one thing... The fact of the matter is, there is a difference in what a real vs a fake item is worth.

Scott-It might be reasonable for someone to write "Conlon photo" on the back. However it is NOT reasonable for them to replicate Conlon's signature within a circle over and over again. Why would they take the time to do that? It is not like they are little kids writing Mickey Mantle on a baseball card(trying to match his sig.).

These stamps and circled signatures are being placed deliberately.


This is a VERY large issue in the photo market and it should not be thrown under the rug. I will go so far as to say it is the current Couches corner of photos. A TYPE 1 BABE RUTH CONLON WITH REAL SIG AND STAMP=4 TO 5 FIGURES..... A RECENT PRINT WITH A FAKE SIG AND STAMP=LOW 1 FIGURE.

I don't care who it is, I would just like it to stop as it is hurting the hobby. Unfortunately, I do not think it will stop until the source be held accountable and exposed).

As a photo collector, I find it all very disturbing.

A well-respected collector and dealer, Rhys, just stated that he had bought a number of photos directly from The Sporting News (not via John Rogers) that had the same pencilled notation on the back. My guess would be that most of these mis-applied Conlon notations were added by editors or archivists prior to the collection passing through the hands of John Rogers' team. That they appear to be in the same hand, which only slightly resembles Conlon's signature, looks to me to be more of a coincidence than anything, and stems more from them all coming from The Sporting News archives than all having passed through the hands of Rogers' team (which, in at least some cases, they didn't).

Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT trying to poo poo the issue or say that you should either disregard the notations completely OR take them as iron-clad provenance, but neither do I think that they are proof of a conspiracy by John Rogers and his team to jack up prices on a handful of the millions of photos they have liberated from so many papers' archives, especially since they were not sold as Conlon originals in the first place. Besides that, John Rogers HAS CONLON'S ORIGINAL GLASS PLATE NEGATIVES and sells high-quality (but modern) prints from them, any one of which sells for more than the mis-identified photos in this thread.

Are false photographer ID's something to watch out for? Sure. Should you look at pencilled notations on the back of photos in context? Always. Is John Rogers out to get you? I don't think so.

I do think more solid proof should be presented than has been though before levelling accusations of forgery against John Rogers (or anyone else) though. Be wary, but at the same time, please be responsible.

Lance F!ttro

[Runscott]

Scott-It might be reasonable for someone to write "Conlon photo" on the back. However it is NOT reasonable for them to replicate Conlon's signature within a circle over and over again. Why would they take the time to do that? It is not like they are little kids writing Mickey Mantle on a baseball card(trying to match his sig.).

To me, if they are forgery attempts, they are poor attempts. Conlon was a man of few pen-strokes, sometimes even looking like he skipped a letter. Whoever wrote his name on these questionable photos actually added extra strokes in most cases. As I said, I think it was probably done shortly after the Sporting News acquired the photos, and someone just wanted to i.d. them as Conlons, giving a reasonable effort at duplicating Conlon's style, but not taking the time to actually forge them. Maybe whoever did it was a Conlon fan and thought it more fun to use his style in id'ing the photos, than to simply print 'Conlon photo' on the backs.

I agree completely with you in that I wish it didn't happen, but not much can be done about it now, and while it could be a modern forgery attempt, I don't think that's the case.

[PhilNap]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

A well-respected collector and dealer, Rhys, just stated that he had bought a number of photos directly from The Sporting News (not via John Rogers) that had the same pencilled notation on the back.

I'm not sure thats exactly what Rhys said. Rhys were you able to buy direct from the Sporting News?

[Forever Young]

Rhys, did you buy these 25-30 direct from the sporting news OR directly from the collection after it was purchased?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Rhys, did you buy these 25-30 direct from the sporting news OR directly from the collection after it was purchased?

I thought we were all just chirping crickets?

Here's is one of Rhys' 'Sporting News' photos that I am almost certain Conlon did NOT write on - I don't think it's even a Conlon. The 'n' at the end of Conlon is wrong, as is the handwriting on the rest of the piece. Conlon was a master at depth-of-field and the background was almost always a bit out-of-focus. I also doubt he would have released a print of an inverses image, especially someone pitching.

Nothing against Rhys or his expertise - I just think this one is incorrect.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1913-ED-REUL...-/320843983202